预测器能准确预估自身损失吗?答案关乎公平性与不确定性评估。
When does a predictor know its own loss?
- 用多校准性理论分析预测器自估损失的可靠性
- 发现非平凡损失预测能力与多校准性失败直接相关
- 适合关注模型公平性与置信度评估的研究者
给定一个预测器和损失函数,我们能在多大程度上预测该预测器在某个输入上将承受的损失?这就是损失预测问题,是预测器不确定性估计中的核心计算任务。在分类场景中,预测器通常输出标签分布,其自身对损失的估计即为该分布的熵。我们应信任这一估计吗?换言之,预测器何时真正知道自己知道什么、不知道什么?本文研究损失预测的理论基础,首次建立非平凡损失预测与多校准性(multicalibration)之间的紧密联系——一种要求在可计算识别的子群体中实现校准的公平性概念。我们证明:若一个损失预测器能优于预测器自身的损失自估,则等价于发现了多校准性的失效证据;反之亦然。这意味着,非平凡损失预测的难度等同于审计多校准性。实验验证了预测器的多校准误差与其损失预测性能之间存在稳健正相关。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Given a predictor and a loss function, how well can we predict the loss that the predictor will incur on an input? This is the problem of loss prediction, a key computational task associated with uncertainty estimation for a predictor. In a classification setting, a predictor will typically predict a distribution over labels and hence have its own estimate of the loss that it will incur, given by the entropy of the predicted distribution. Should we trust this estimate? In other words, when does the predictor know what it knows and what it does not know? In this work we study the theoretical foundations of loss prediction. Our main contribution is to establish tight connections between nontrivial loss prediction and certain forms of multicalibration, a multigroup fairness notion that asks for calibrated predictions across computationally identifiable subgroups. Formally, we show that a loss predictor that is able to improve on the self-estimate of a predictor yields a witness to a failure of multicalibration, and vice versa. This has the implication that nontrivial loss prediction is in effect no easier or harder than auditing for multicalibration. We support our theoretical results with experiments that show a robust positive correlation between the multicalibration error of a predictor and the efficacy of training a loss predictor.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。